ÿWPCN Wa¶ðbs,gPÌÒ{fæÐYA¾u"þI¹/Kò¡ß#G¦¹º­L–Ã/mì-!&r3…—ƒѤωNÀŠCž1©ò|šÒâxÊzôªbÈõ_:ɲ÷fÔ}ÔÄ–üÓ¡Jœ‡?£,E0Ò æ< Ä~×|à†»”µBså"óÿa#~s‹R$¹!³A{5ýè·7ëáGÇIët‘½fñj°³ƒ2Á‘õ!Ej€Õe¦V[s´î¬Ê#³ì1¦;«¥ ïZ%Õl,ƒiGåÀÖ¤úƒ?Nû„L¬!ý`hžÄ³hÇë÷WÛAÖ,Ø1Vɼ4u:ÐBéjàj¡DÝégX-Ñ–{×bÁÝðVû57ÜÁáPcžùmB¦Çä3 Ô+EÕ„Îã=»%åÂSÖ­ðD´¹×àAf Q<õjrìûŒªí>ߘ•êà{Ác^ý|[_¡ ªû»/W…/ý¶‰„½¼{I 5¶^[F#CÅUtþM¤ÞN³ÿzsñ( Ídïju«Ç`dÀ0œË2ˆä›~`çO¾ àXÁ±YѵÒe7:ä1ÍÏo3 ÕØÝîaFÊ6ò®ÆÊdýÉ|whqˆCÀlÜ®­õßEÈèn6­²0yb#Á\ % N# 0ˆ% U N­ ­ ­ zû Òu zG ÒÁ ^ “ wŸ Æ£ Æi Æ/Æõ4»NÏÑàEâ mäU@û;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;bCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC 0ëKKKK B66 0¤S D3÷ D-* 0KWW AS¢Æõ 0¤» 0D_ A«£˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptŠn–,s Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Yo†).bk1Pf§3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÆúI Z‹(Times New Roman  - ù-(|G2»£$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Kí»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôç%ò»»Ô d(|3Éi$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Kí»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Éi$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Kí»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Kí»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼Kí»»»ÔÑ8€ ‘XXdì»»d8ÑÔ€¼Kí»»¼KíÔà@ttìàÔ‡îU#KíÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼Kí»îîU#;#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àDecember€4,€2001€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X ‘X»¼KíÔÌò òÔ#†¼Kí»XX ‘C#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€JOHNNY€Ô_ÔMOFFITTÔ_ÔÔ‡X ‘X»¼KíÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Henderson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€89„370€€€€€€€Roy€Morgan,€Jr.,€Judge€Ð æ 6 ÐÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½ ` AßÐ ¾   ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2001„00781„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€April€19,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¹  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<` AßÐ ‘á  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€defendant,€Johnny€Ô_ÔMoffittÔ_Ô,€entered€a€plea€of€guilt€to€second€degree€murder.€€The€trial€courtÐ ŒÜ  Ðimposed€a€Range€I€sentence€of€10€years.€€By€agreement,€the€defendant€reserved€a€certified€question€Ð xÈ  Ðof€law.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€P.€37.€€The€issue€presented€in€this€appeal€is€whether€the€trial€court€shouldÐ d´ Ðhave€dismissed€the€charge€due€to€the€loss€or€destruction€of€evidence.€€The€judgment€is€affirmed.€Ð P  ÐÓìÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€Affirmedó óÐ (x ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Kí»àX ‘Í#ÔÔ‡X ‘X.¼KíÔGary€R.€Wade,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ôóó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€H.€Wellesóó€and€òòDavid€G.Ð P ÐHayes,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð ì< ÐÌLloyd€R.€Ô_ÔTatumÔ_Ô,€Henderson,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Johnny€Ô_ÔMoffittÔ_Ô.Ð Ä ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€J.€Ross€Dyer,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€andÐ œì ÐAlfred€L.€Earls,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ˆØ ÐÓ†ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Kí»XX ‘µ#ÔÔ‡X ‘X»¼KíÔÐ `° ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼Kí»XX ‘o #ÔÔ‡X ‘X»¼KíÔÓ  Óà  àThe€defendanÔ#†¼Kí»XX ‘Í #ÔÔ€X ‘X»¼KíÔt€was€indicted€on€June€6,€1989,€on€charges€of€first€degree€murder€and€shootingÐ 8!ˆ  Ðinto€an€occupied€dwelling.€€The€victim,€Kenneth€Ô_ÔWallerÔ_Ô,€the€brother€of€the€defendant's€ex„wife,€wasÐ $"t! Ðshot€and€killed€in€his€residence.€€It€was€established€at€trial€that€the€defendant€had€threatened€to€killÐ #`" Ðthe€victim€some€three€or€four€days€before€the€shooting.€€The€victim's€death€was€the€result€of€gunshotÐ ü#L# Ðwounds€inflicted€by€a€nine€millimeter€weapon.€€Five€nine€millimeter€shell€casings€were€found€insideÐ è$8 $ Ðthe€victim's€residence€and€seven€were€found€in€his€yard.€€Gunshots€had€been€fired€into€the€front€doorÐ Ô%$!% Ðfrom€the€outside.€€Two€empty€shell€casings€found€in€the€defendant's€yard€€were€determined€to€haveÐ À&"& Ðbeen€fired€from€the€same€weapon€as€those€at€the€scene€of€the€crime.€€A€description€of€a€vehicle€seenÐ ¬'ü"' Ðat€the€victim's€residence€at€the€time€of€the€shooting€was€similar€to€that€of€a€vehicle€driven€by€theÐ ˜(è#( Ðdefendant.€€An€officer€had€seen€a€nine€millimeter€pistol€in€the€defendant's€gun€rack.€€When€hisÐ „)Ô$) Ðresidence€was€searched€pursuant€to€a€warrant,€however,€no€such€weapon€was€found€and€theÐ p*À%* Ðdefendant€denied€owning€a€pistol€of€that€nature.€€Later,€the€defendant€turned€over€to€authorities€aÐ \+¬&+ Ðnine€millimeter€weapon,€along€with€empty€cartridges.€€Other€evidence€established€that€the€defendantÐ H,˜', Ðdid€indeed€own€a€nine€millimeter€pistol€prior€to€the€shooting.€€A€neighbor€observed€a€white€maleÐ 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ôcarrying€an€orange€jacket€enter€the€victim's€residence€just€prior€to€the€murder.€€That€neighborÐ ° Ðobserved€the€same€white€male,€whom€she€could€not€positively€identify€as€the€defendant,€leave€theÐ œì Ðresidence€without€the€orange€jacket.€€€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àBased€upon€this€circumstantial€evidence,€the€defendant€was€convicted€on€both€charges.€€ThisÐ `° Ðcourt€affirmed€on€direct€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Johnny€Moffittóó,€No.€7€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Jackson,€Dec.Ð L œ Ð5,€1990).€€Application€for€permission€to€appeal€to€the€supreme€court€was€denied€March€4,€1991.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àLater,€the€defendant€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€The€trial€court€denied€relief.€Ð  ` ÐOn€appeal,€this€court€reversed,€holding€that€the€defendant's€trial€counsel€had€been€ineffective€byÐ ü L  Ðconceding€that€an€alibi€defense,€which€would€have€been€charged€to€the€jury,€had€not€been€fairlyÐ è 8  Ðraised€by€the€evidence.€€A€witness€for€the€state€had€testified€that€he€was€with€the€defendant€from€6:45Ð Ô$  ÐA.M.€on€the€date€of€the€murder€until€approximately€1:00€P.M.€€The€medical€examiner€determinedÐ À  Ðthat€the€victim€had€died€between€11:00€A.M.€and€1:00€P.M.€and€that€death€could€not€have€occurredÐ ¬ü  Ðafter€1:00€P.M.€€òòJohnny€Moffitt€v.€Stateóó,€29€S.W.3d€51,€54€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1999).€€After€remand,Ð ˜è  Ðthe€defendant,€by€agreement€with€the€state,€pled€guilty€to€second€degree€murder€and€reserved€aÐ „Ô  Ðcertified€question€of€law€for€appeal.€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àDuring€the€course€of€the€appeal€and€post„conviction€litigation,€three€exhibits,€a€nineÐ H˜ Ðmillimeter€gun€owned€by€the€defendant,€an€orange€vest€owned€by€the€defendant,€and€an€orange€jacketÐ 4„ Ðfound€at€the€crime€scene,€were€lost€by€either€the€Henderson€County€Sheriff's€Department€or€theÐ  p ÐHenderson€County€Court€Clerk's€Office.€€June€Beecham,€a€deputy€circuit€court€clerk,€testified€thatÐ  \ Ðthere€was€a€flood€in€the€basement€of€the€courthouse€between€1998€and€1999.€€She€testified€thatÐ øH Ðduring€the€cleanup€process,€the€orange€jacket€found€at€the€scene€of€the€crime€and€an€orange€vestÐ ä4 Ðintroduced€by€the€defendant€at€his€original€trial€were€accidentally€lost.€€Ms.€Beecham€also€testifiedÐ Ð  Ðthat€the€nine€millimeter€gun,€which€had€been€made€an€exhibit€by€the€defendant,€had€been€sent€to€theÐ ¼  ÐTennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€after€the€trial€and€that€its€whereabouts€were€also€unknown.€€TheÐ ¨ø Ðdefendant's€son,€Brian€Moffitt,€testified€that€the€jacket€introduced€by€the€state€at€trial€would€haveÐ ”ä Ðbeen€too€small€for€the€defendant€at€the€time€of€the€shooting.€€When€questioned€by€an€officer€prior€Ð €Ð Ðto€the€original€trial,€however,€Brian€Moffitt€had€acknowledged€that€it€could€have€belonged€to€hisÐ l¼ Ðfather.€€Earl€Jerome€Lee,€who€did€not€testify€at€the€first€trial,€was€incarcerated€with€the€defendant€inÐ X ¨ Ðthe€Department€of€Correction.€€Lee€was€prepared€to€testify€in€the€second€trial€that€the€defendant€hadÐ D!” Ðacknowledged€shooting€the€victim€and€had€actually€provided€some€details€of€the€murder.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àThe€precise€question€is€whether€the€defendant€is€entitled€to€a€dismissal€due€to€the€loss€of€theÐ $X" Ðgun,€the€vest,€and€the€jacket.€€In€òòState€v.€Fergusonóó,€2€S.W.3d€912€(Tenn.€1999),€our€supreme€courtÐ ô$D # Ðrejected€the€bad€faith€test€as€to€missing€evidence,€as€adopted€in€òòArizona€v.€Youngbloodóó,€488€U.S.Ð à%0!$ Ð51€(1998),€and€instead€established€a€balancing€test€involving€three€steps.€€In€òòFergusonóó,€the€supremeÐ Ì&"% Ðcourt,€implementing€an€analysis€adopted€by€the€Supreme€Court€of€Delaware€in€òòHammond€v.€Stateóó,Ð ¸'#& Ð569€A.2d€81,€87€(Del.€1989),€ruled€as€follows:Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà8  àà ` àThe€first€step€in€this€analysis€is€to€determine€whether€the€[s]tate€had€a€duty€toÐ |*Ì%) Ðpreserve€the€evidence.€.€.€.Ðh+¸&*Ð Ð  Їà8  àà ` àIf€the€proof€demonstrates€the€existence€of€a€duty€to€preserve€and€furtherÐ ° Ðshows€that€the€[s]tate€has€failed€in€that€duty,€the€analysis€moves€to€a€consideration€ofÐ œì Ðseveral€factors€which€should€guide€the€decision€regarding€the€consequences€of€theÐ ˆØ Ðbreach.€€Those€factors€include:€€ÐtÄÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` à(1)à0¸ Ð Ð àThe€degree€of€negligence€involved;€ÐL œ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(2)à0¸ Ð Ð àThe€significance€of€the€destroyed€evidence,€considered€in€light€of€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðprobative€value€and€reliability€of€a€secondary€or€substitute€evidence€Ð $ t Ðthat€remains€available;€andÐ `¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(3)à0¸ Ð Ð àThe€sufficiency€of€the€other€evidence€used€at€trial€to€support€theÐ ü L  Ðconviction.Ðè 8 ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌ€à8  àà ` àOf€course,€.€.€.€the€central€objective€is€to€protect€the€defendant's€right€to€aÐ À  Ðfundamentally€fair€trial.€€If,€after€considering€all€the€factors,€the€trial€judge€concludesÐ ¬ü  Ðthat€a€trial€without€the€missing€evidence€would€not€be€fundamentally€fair,€then€theÐ ˜è  Ðtrial€court€may€dismiss€the€charges.€.€.€.€€Ð„Ô Ð Ð  ÐÌ2€S.W.3d€at€917.€€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àAs€a€general€rule,€"the€state€has€a€duty€to€preserve€all€evidence€subject€to€discovery€andÐ 4„ Ðinspection€under€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16,€or€other€applicable€law."€€òòId.óó€€The€due€process€clause€of€theÐ  p ÐFourteenth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€entitles€every€defendant€to€a€fair€trial.€€TheÐ  \ Ðcriminally€accused€has€a€constitutionally€protected€privilege€to€request,€obtain,€and€have€availableÐ øH Ðfor€trial€from€the€prosecution€any€evidence€that€is€either€material€to€guilt€or€relevant€to€punishment.€Ð ä4 ÐòòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€83,€87€(1963).€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€motion€to€dismiss,€the€trial€court€attributed€the€loss€of€the€evidenceÐ ¨ø Ðto€the€state,€determined€that€the€loss€was€inadvertent€and€involved€no€bad€faith,€and€denied€relief.€Ð ”ä ÐIt€reasoned€that€a€photograph€of€the€orange€hunting€jacket€which€had€been€introduced€by€the€stateÐ €Ð Ðwas€available€for€the€new€trial€and€observed€that€the€defendant€did€not€at€anytime€prior€to€beingÐ l¼ Ðnotified€of€the€loss€of€the€evidence€ask€to€try€on€the€jacket€for€size.€€In€making€this€ruling,€the€trialÐ X ¨ Ðcourt€took€into€account€the€proffered€testimony€of€Brian€Moffitt€that€while€the€jacket€would€fit€theÐ D!” Ðdefendant,€if€tried€on€at€the€time€of€the€motion,€it€would€have€been€too€small€at€the€time€of€theÐ 0"€  Ðmurder.€€The€trial€court€determined€that€the€orange€vest€introduced€at€the€first€trial€was€irrelevant€andÐ #l! Ðhad€no€probative€value€for€the€new€trial.€€Because€it€was€stipulated€that€the€nine€millimeter€pistolÐ $X" Ðwhich€had€been€submitted€for€ballistics€testing€prior€to€the€first€trial€was€not€the€murder€weapon,€itÐ ô$D # Ðwould€not€have€been€prejudicial€to€the€defendant€for€that€stipulation€to€be€introduced€as€evidence€inÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€new€trial€in€substitution€of€the€weapon€itself.€€After€summarizing€the€evidence€produced€at€theÐ Ì&"% Ðfirst€trial,€the€trial€court€concluded€that€it€was€sufficient€to€have€supported€the€conviction€and€thatÐ ¸'#& Ða€new€trial,€without€the€missing€evidence,€would€not€be€fundamentally€unfair.€€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€cites€òòState€v.€Osakalumióó,€461€S.E.2d€504€(W.€Va.€1995),€in€support€of€hisÐ |*Ì%) Ðclaim€for€dismissal.€€In€òòOsakalumióó,€the€West€Virginia€Supreme€Court€utilized€an€analysis€similar€toÐ h+¸&* Ðthat€adopted€in€òòFergusonóóin€reversing€a€conviction.€€The€state€had€destroyed€a€couch€which€had€beenÐ ° Ðseized€from€the€crime€scene€and€which€contained€a€bullet,€hair,€and€bone€fragments.€€The€trajectoryÐ œì Ðof€the€bullet€was€material€to€the€opinion€of€the€medical€examiner€in€determining€whether€the€killingÐ ˆØ Ðwas€a€homicide€or€a€suicide.€€As€additional€support,€the€defendant€cites€òòGurley€v.€Stateóó,€639€So.2dÐ tÄ Ð557€(Ala.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€In€òòGurleyóó,€the€state€theorized€that€a€murder€victim€had€been€robbedÐ `° Ðbecause€of€a€charred€wallet€found€on€property€linked€to€the€defendant.€€The€state€lost€the€wallet,Ð L œ Ðdepriving€the€defendant€of€the€ability€to€conduct€examinations€and€determine€whether€the€charredÐ 8 ˆ Ðobject€was,€in€fact,€€a€wallet€and€whether€it€belonged€to€the€victim.€€Applying€the€òòHammondóótest,€theÐ $ t ÐAlabama€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€reversed€the€conviction€and€remanded€for€a€new€trial€withÐ  ` Ðinstructions€to€the€trial€court€to€either€dismiss,€suppress€evidence€relating€to€the€lost€object,€orÐ ü L  Ðprovide€an€adverse€inference€€instruction.€€òòId.óó€at€567„569.€€A€similar€result€was€reached€in€òòState€v.Ð è 8  ÐMoralesóó,€657€A.2d€585€(Conn.€1995),€where€the€Connecticut€Supreme€Court€reversed€a€convictionÐ Ô$  Ðbased€upon€the€loss€of€a€rape€victim's€jacket€which€might€have€contained€semen€stains.€€UponÐ À  Ðremand,€the€Connecticut€Supreme€Court€directed€the€trial€court€to€determine€what€remedy€bestÐ ¬ü  Ðserved€the€interest€of€justice.€€òòId.óó€at€596.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àIn€applying€the€òòFergusonóó€test€to€these€circumstances,€the€state€stipulates€that€it€had€theÐ pÀ Ðobligation€to€preserve€the€evidence.€€That€it€was€lost€or€misplaced,€probably€during€courthouseÐ \¬ Ðflooding,€was€mere€negligence.€€Certainly,€there€was€no€proof€of€bad€faith.€€The€probative€value€andÐ H˜ Ðreliability€of€secondary€substitute€evidence€that€remains€available,€the€second€step€in€the€process,€isÐ 4„ Ðparticularly€helpful€in€this€instance€because€there€had€been€an€earlier€trial€involving€reported,Ð  p Ðavailable€testimony.€€There€was€a€photograph€of€the€jacket€and€the€prior€recorded€testimony€by€BrianÐ  \ ÐMoffitt,€who€made€no€claims€about€the€size.€€While€comparing€its€size€to€the€orange€vest€might€haveÐ øH Ðbeen€helpful€to€the€defense,€the€fact€that€comparisons€were€not€made€in€the€first€trial€could€not€haveÐ ä4 Ðaided€the€case€of€the€defendant.€€Before€it€was€lost,€the€defendant€had€not€expressed€any€interest€inÐ Ð  Ðtrying€on€the€jacket.€€The€orange€vest€was€made€an€exhibit€by€the€defendant€in€the€first€trial€to€showÐ ¼  Ðthat€while€he€did€own€such€a€vest,€he€did€not€own€a€jacket€of€the€same€color.€€Finally,€it€wasÐ ¨ø Ðstipulated€that€the€nine€millimeter€pistol€provided€by€the€defendant€in€the€first€trial€was€not€the€sameÐ ”ä Ðas€that€used€to€kill€the€victim.€€The€stipulation,€in€our€view,€is€just€as€helpful€in€explaining€theÐ €Ð Ðdefendant's€initial€denial€to€police€of€ownership€of€such€a€weapon.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àAs€to€the€third€step,€while€the€evidence€was€entirely€circumstantial,€it€was€particularlyÐ D!” Ðcompelling€given€the€relationship€between€the€defendant€and€the€victim.€€The€defendant€had€a€motiveÐ 0"€  Ðfor€the€crime€and€had€threatened€the€victim.€€That€shell€casings€from€the€murder€weapon€were€foundÐ #l! Ðin€the€defendant's€yard€was€especially€incriminating.€€So€was€the€defendant's€initial€claim€that€he€didÐ $X" Ðnot€own€a€nine€millimeter€weapon.€€His€confession€of€guilt€to€an€inmate€after€the€first€trial€wouldÐ ô$D # Ðhave€made€the€state's€case€even€more€persuasive€in€a€second€trial.€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àIn€òòFergusonóó,€our€supreme€court€offered€alternatives€other€than€dismissal:Ð ¸'#& Ðà8  àThe€trial€judge€may€craft€such€orders€as€may€be€appropriate€to€protect€the€defendant'sÐ ¤(ô#' Ðfair€trial€rights.€€As€an€example,€the€trial€judge€may€determine,€under€the€facts€andÐ )à$( Ðcircumstances€of€the€case,€that€the€defendant's€rights€would€best€be€protected€by€aÐ |*Ì%) Ðjury€instruction.€€Ðh+¸&*Ð Ð  Ї2€S.W.3d€at€917.€Ð ° ÐÌà  àIn€a€footnote,€the€court€provided€suggested€language:Ð ˆØ ÐÌà8  àà ` àThe€[s]tate€has€a€duty€to€gather,€preserve,€and€produce€at€trial€evidence€whichÐ `° Ðmay€possess€exculpatory€value.€€Such€evidence€must€be€of€a€nature€that€defendantÐ L œ Ðwould€be€unable€to€obtain€comparable€evidence€through€reasonably€available€means.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐThe€[s]tate€has€no€duty€to€gather€or€indefinitely€preserve€evidence€considered€by€aÐ $ t Ðqualified€person€to€have€no€exculpatory€value,€so€that€an€as€yet€unknown€defendantÐ  ` Ðmay€later€examine€the€evidence.Ðü L Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àIf,€after€considering€all€of€the€proof,€you€find€that€the€[s]tate€failed€to€gatherÐ Ô$  Ðor€preserve€evidence,€the€contents€or€qualities€of€which€are€in€issue€and€theÐ À  Ðproduction€of€which€would€more€probably€than€not€be€of€benefit€to€the€defendant,Ð ¬ü  Ðyou€may€infer€that€the€absent€evidence€would€be€favorable€to€the€defendant.€€Ð˜è Ð Ð  ÐÌòòId.óó€n.11.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àIn€our€view,€an€instruction€of€that€nature€would€have€been€more€than€sufficient€to€resolve€theÐ H˜ Ðissue.€€A€dismissal€would€not€have€been€warranted.€€In€our€view,€the€defendant€would€not€have€beenÐ 4„ Ðdeprived€of€a€fundamentally€fair€trial€in€the€second€instance.Ð  p ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.Ð øH ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ¨ø Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGE